Voices
in
Japan

poll

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants Japan to have a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. Would you support such a move?

39 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

The subject is not so simple that this can be answered with a simple yes or no. It is a complex subject.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

I support such a move. The problem, however, is that the PRC (supported by South Korea, at least) would never allow Japan to attain permanent member status without a hard fight.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

A simple question it is not, but reinterpreting Article 9 was unquestionably done to support this closet ambition of the right wing. Japan joining the Security Council as a permanent member would not provide any ALPHA to decision making (or any political substance to UN debating points). Japan would ALWAYS vote with the U.S. It could never represent a single renegade NO vote against any proposition. This is all about rekindling national pride in the sense Abe believes in (promoting "peace" through expanding military industrial exports). Practically speaking both China and Russia will say no so it simply cannot happen.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

No. Based on what? Nothing in job description of UN Security Council (from brief reading of wikipedia) speaks "Japan".

Japan's practically a neutral country. Why not give Costa Rica a spot?

HOW does Abe expect a spot on the council?

Just for example, from wikipedia, one glaring point right here: "The Security Council consists of fifteen members. The great powers that were the victors of World War II—Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States—serve as the body's five permanent members."

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

This seems to be the hot ticket item every 2nd tier nation wants to have. Japan having a permanent seat is a moot point because it will normally vote with the US and the US already has veto power. I'd say yes only because their constitution renounces war. On this point, if we're going to start handing out permanent seats I'd nominate the Swiss because their 'neutrality', and Saudi Arabia to bring the middle east into the process a little more, and South Africa because of it's stability and regional location.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Lets face it until the UN is totally dismantled & IF re-invented there is no hope for Japan getting its cherished nailed tot he floor seat!

The UN while good in principle has been mostly dysfunctional now for a long time due to China & Russia's refusal to cooperate & do whats right................I say if those 2 don't start getting the crap together maybe the UN should consider booting the OUT! That might be better than leaving things as is.

Japan should mostly stick to paying big bucks into the UN its what its good at, there is no way other countries will want Japan on top deciding stuff & then sending people from OTHER countries to do the jobs, sorry, while Japanese stay home.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There is no legitimate reason why Japan should not be on.Japan has more than paid its dues over World War 2 and with what it has contributed to society since then worldwide.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

No.

I'd rather have a country with a real military making decisions. Not a bunch of boy scouts with delusions of grandeur.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

If countries like China can have veto right, countries like Japan can have UN Security Council seats a 1000 times. Otherwise something is clearly wrong.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Hell yeah! It is in keeping with their military expenditure and would balance out the know-nothings China and Russia.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I support Abe's move, then I hope he realizes that UN is nothing but just a bunch of Japan-bashers.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

horizon360SEP. 29, 2014 - 09:07AM JST Japan joining the Security Council as a permanent member would not provide any ALPHA to decision making (or any political substance to UN debating points). Japan would ALWAYS vote with the U.S. It could never represent a single renegade NO vote against any proposition. Practically speaking both China and Russia will say no so it simply cannot happen.

You are quite right : Russia always says NO to a such decision by one simple reason - Japan is not politically independent country

May be India or Brasil but not Japan, sorry

Germany - also - NO (NATO member and we have THREE at the moment in the Council)

So goodbye Germany ....

So who can 100 years before forecast such situation ?

Russia&China - Yes

Germany&Japan - NO

But it is so ....

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Isn't UNSC indecisive enough already?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Not as long as it has Article Nine.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

No. There are already too many permanent votes on the UNSC with veto rights and vested interests. There should be no permanent members, though nations with the highest populations and economies should get regular turns there (including the likes of Japan, the US, Russia and China). Perhaps a wider voice is what the UNSC needs. More nations inputting into the discussion and less opportunity for vested interests to ride roughshod over it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I support it, but it will never happen. Russia will probably veto it, and China most certainly will veto it.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If China and Rusia are in there... why Japan can(t be?

Oh.. yes, because Japan lost the war...... the security council is the "cool kids" little club.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It wasn't so long ago that Japan and Germany were still in the doghouse at the UN as "enemy nations". In response to the question I believe that the security council mechanism is fundamentally broken. If we were faced by a threat the magnitude of Hitler these days, I suspect that the UN would fail to come to an agreement regarding how to respond. With regard to Japan in particular, at a domestic level it has shown time and again that it is unable to be decisive when confronted with major diplomatic issues. Indeed, the fall-back position is just to follow the US like some attention-seeking puppy. Thus, I cannot see there being any really benefit to giving Japan a chair at the grownups table.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@HongoTAFEinmate I agree with you in most part.... but

giving Japan a chair at the grownups table. ????

You are calling, the US, China and Russia "grown ups"?????...

10 ( +11 / -1 )

When Japan becomes a true democracy then maybe, Abe and his ilk are just throwbacks from days best forgotten.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"The subject is not so simple that this can be answered with a simple yes or no. It is a complex subject."

Nonsense. I shall make it easy for you. Since the People's Republic of China is currently the only Asian country to have permanent UN Sec status, and since all countries to have such rights also maintain the VETO POWER over anything proposed in the Security Council (where all members should need to agree in order to proceed), Japan will therefore NEVER be a permanent member.

Game over, Japan. Too bad you were on the losing side of World War II, huh??

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It wasn't so long ago that Japan and Germany were still in the doghouse at the UN as "enemy nations".

Japan is still listed as an enemy nation in the three "enemy nations" Clauses of UN Charter.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It seems that the present UN security council can't decide anything most important for the world as long as China, Russia, the US veto for each other in the small world of the UN. So the UN seems to be almost nothing and to need something new for better UN.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

it doesn't really matter as the U.N. is just a useless organization anyway .

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@BNlightened It is too bad the adult countries let the PRC into UN, you are right.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

HongoTAFEinmateSEP. 30, 2014 - 02:21PM JST It wasn't so long ago that Japan and Germany were still in the doghouse at the UN as "enemy nations". In response to the question I believe that the security council mechanism is fundamentally broken. If we were faced by a threat the magnitude of Hitler these days, I suspect that the UN would fail to come to an agreement regarding how to respond

The UN had a precursor organization -based in Geneva- between the two world wars. It was called the 'League of Nations' or 'Voelkerbund". This organization completely failed because it was unable to prevent the aggrssion of the three 'Axis Powers", Germany, Japan and Italy. Germany left the LN in the early thirties of last century followed by Japan, Italy and also by Fascist Franco's Spain. Present day UN is a bit more efficient but there was never a serious test. Not sure whether a real universal war could be prevented by the UN. I hope we never see such a case.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Six thumbs down for "Not as long as it has Article Nine."

I wonder, what role can a Japan that cannot send peace keeping forces play in, well, keeping the peace?

As for the UN doesn't do anything:

Hear about that thing in Africa? Y'know, Ebola, or something...? Yeah, some group is doing something....but hey. It don't affect me!

Educate yourself.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@JTDanMan People are probably confused as to whether you mean that Japan should be kept out of the SC or that the SC should change its ways. I think the latter is preferable.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What purpose would this serve? Security Council votes, like much of what the UN does, are meaningless even when unanimous.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Another vote on the council for the American Empire.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

To have a permanent seat at the top table, Japan would need the capacity to deploy its armed forces for combat or combat support operations around the globe, and the political will to do so.

It has neither, so it shouldn't have a veto in security decisions.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If Japan was to be given a permanent seat I fear it would only be used as a way to manipulate and veto rulings to suit themselves. Japan has proven time and time again it is not a world player and always adds 'special requirements' to any international deal.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

manipulate and veto rulings to suit themselves

And this is different from the current members how?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes of course it should. Other countries should be grateful Japan has cooperated with the UN to such an enormous degree without demanding it up to now. A huge part of the UN budget comes from Japan, the is no excuse for Japan not too have a seat.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

UN's a joke as long as there is this veto thing going on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Japan getting the UN Security Council seat will change the dynamic to all issues. Critical.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

why would Russia, China want that. it would just be another permanent member that would side with the US, UK and veto anything they propose

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@wtfjapan Invert the logic and countries of your last statement and you have the view of countries that aren't China and Russia. Ultimately the veto has to go, and then numbers matter.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

UN Security Council Resolution 550 (with US abstaining) ordered Turkey out of the Cyprus resort town of Varosha in 1984, and it's still a ghost town under Turkish military control.

Toothless council unless some member nations decide to act on something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varosha,_Famagusta

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites